Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2804 (PNJ)

Neelam v. State of Haryana

2017-11-22

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, S.J.VAZIFDAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot No.259, Sector 7, Jind, in her favour as provided by the Joint Inspection Committee of the respondents at a meeting held on 21.07.2015. 2. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the Chief Administrator, Administrator and Estate Officer of the HUDA. Respondent No.5 is the Land Acquisition Collector. 3. The petitioner finds herself in an unfortunate predicament. The respondents had acquired a large area. The petitioner’s land admeasuring 12 marlas was, however, not acquired. The respondents admit the same. However, despite the petitioner’s land not having been acquired, HUDA appropriated the same and even put up construction thereon and created third party rights in respect thereof. HUDA allotted seven plots to various persons carved out of the petitioner’s area. 4. One Sandeep Singh, a co-owner of the property with the petitioner, filed CWP No.8116 of 2011 in respect of a similar grievance. That writ petition was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 09.05.2011 by permitting the petitioner therein to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector and to raise his grievance along with the grievance of the petitioner herein which were pending. The competent authority was directed to pass an appropriate order within three months. 5. At a meeting held on 21.07.2015, the Joint Inspection Committee under the chairmanship of the Administrator of HUDA made the following recommendations:- “(B) Regarding the subjective case, District Town Planner informed that the subjective place is situated in the approved layout plan of Sector-9 and the land of the applicant affects 7 plots of 8 marla blocks and 45 meter wide road of the sector. The spot was inspected by the Chairman alongwith all the present members and the report of point-3 (A)(B) was discussed and keeping in view the consent letter of the applicant it was decided to give that plot of 6 marla and 8 marla by the HUDA in lieu of the land of the applicant which are plot no.259 as per approved layout plan of Sector 7 and plot No.210 in block of 6 marla as per approved layout plan of Sector 6, regarding which consent letter was given and it was decided to exchange with each other. It has also been decided by the Committee that the applicant who will take 8 marla plots from the above said applicants he will pay the due amount of 2 marla of land to the HUDA department as per rule.” 6. The petitioner is content with this recommendation. The respondents, however, are not willing to accept this decision. They instead agree only to extend to the petitioner the benefit under clause (iii) of a policy dated 18.01.2017 which reads as follows:- “Subject:- Policy regarding exchange of HUDA land with the land of developers/individual land owners. 1. The matter cited as subject was placed before the Authority in its 112th meeting held on 10.01.2017 vide Agenda item no.22 with following proposal for dealing with exchange of land cases:- A. Conditions under which exchange of HUDA land shall be considered: (i) …. ….. ….… .…..… …..…… ..….. .…..… …..…. ..….. (ii) …. ….. ….… .…..… …..…… ..….. .…..… …..…. ..….. (iii) Where HUDA has utilized unacquired land of individual land owner without paying compensation/land in exchange, in such cases, land owner can opt for one of the following benefits:- (a). HUDA shall pay the updated cost of land based on the award announced for the land abutting/adjoining to the land of individual land owner. (b). The land owner will have an option to have residential plot of area equivalent to 40% of his utilized unacquired land by HUDA. This plot will be given to the land owner in the same sector in which his land has been utilized. If plot is not available in the same sector then plot will be given in the adjoining sector of the same Revenue Estate. If plot is not available in same sector or adjoining sector then only monetary benefits as given in (a) above shall be paid to the land owner.” (emphasis supplied) The respondents are agreed to extend the benefit of the policy as per the portion emphasised by us. 7. It is not permissible for the respondents to unilaterally decide the manner and the extent to which the petitioner’s grievance in such circumstances is to be redressed. The petitioner is entitled to have her grievance redressed in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner’s land was, admittedly, appropriated by the respondents without their having acquired the same. 7. It is not permissible for the respondents to unilaterally decide the manner and the extent to which the petitioner’s grievance in such circumstances is to be redressed. The petitioner is entitled to have her grievance redressed in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner’s land was, admittedly, appropriated by the respondents without their having acquired the same. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to have the possession of the land restored to her free of all encumbrances created by or on account of the respondents’ conduct. The petitioner would, in any event, be entitled to compel the respondents in such circumstances to acquire the land in accordance with law. The petitioner is content to accept the respondents’ decision as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 21.07.2015. 9. The respondents must choose one of these options. The first two are a legal consequence and the last is the petitioner’s volition. 10. The petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing the respondents to take a decision whether to abide by the decision/recommendation recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 21.07.2015 or to acquire the property or to hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the petitioner along with the coowner and to implement the decision by 31.01.2018.